Just when you think you'd heard the worst of it ...

[jamespowers]

The people voted Hitler into power.

That is a common misconception. Hitler was NOT voted into power. He was connived into it by Fannz von Papen because he though Hitler would be an easily controlled stooge. Big surprise----he wasn't.
More specifically:
"Frequently, those who oppose the democratic peace argue that Hitler was elected democratically in 1932, and therefore World War II in which Hitler fought many democracies shows that democracies make war on each other. Then there are those who recognize that Hitler seized total power in Germany and therefore at the time of the war, it was not a democracy. Still, even some of them believe Hitler was elected, and that proves the inherent danger of democracies electing tyrants.
First, Hitler was never elected. He ran in two national elections in 1932. In the first, he got 30 percent of the vote, and no one got a majority. In the resulting runoff election, he increased his votes to 37 percent, while his opponent, World War I hero Field Marshall Hindenburg, got a majority. And since the Nazi party won 230 seats out of 608 in the Reichstag, it did not have the majority to make Hitler Chancellor.
So how did this happen? By backroom backstabbing, double-crossing, threats, and promises, including among former Chancellor Franz von Papen, present Chancellor Lieutenant General Kurt von Schleicher, and the elected President Hindenburg. Their maneuvering, a rumor of a threatened military coup, and the urging von Papen, who had entered into a secret alliance with Hitler to get supporters into Cabinet positions, finally persuaded Hindenburg to reluctantly appoint that “little corporeal” Hitler chancellor. Many involved in this intrigue, including von Papen, thought that this would bring Hitler under their control."

How did Hitler get so much control after that?:
"When Hitler was appointed in January 1933, Germany was a democracy. Germany had fair elections; nobody had their right to vote abused; there were numerous political parties you could vote for etc. To pass a law, the Reichstag had to agree to it after a bill went through the normal processes of discussion, arguments etc. Within the Reichstag of January 1933, over 50% of those who held seats were against the Nazi Party. Therefore it would have been very unlikely for Hitler to have got passed into law what he wanted. . . .
Hitler had promised a general election for March 1933. . . . One week before the election was due to take place, the Reichstag building burned down. Hitler immediately declared that it was the signal for a communist takeover of the nation. Hitler knew that if he was to convince President Hindenburg to give him emergency powers – as stated in the Constitution – he had to play on the old president’s fear of communism. What better than to convince him that the communists were about to take over the nation by force?
A known communist – Marianus van der Lubbe – was caught near the Reichstag building immediately after the fire had started. Those that arrested him – Nazi officials – claimed that Lubbe confessed to them that the fire was a signal to other communists to start the revolution to overthrow democracy in the country. Matches were allegedly found on van der Lubbe and those who arrested him claimed that he smelt of petrol.
Hitler asked Hindenburg to grant him emergency powers in view of the ‘communist takeover’. Using the constitution, Hindenburg agreed to pass the Law for the Protection of the People and the State.
This law gave Hitler what he wanted — a ban on the Communists and Socialists taking part in an election campaign. The leaders from both parties were arrested and their newspapers were shut down. To ‘keep the peace’ and maintain law and order, the HYPERLINK “http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi_police_state.htm” SA (the Brown Shirts) roamed the streets beating up those who openly opposed Hitler.
The election took place in March — though Hitler was convinced it would be the last. Hitler did not get the number of votes he wanted but he did get enough to get over a 50% majority in the Reichstag. . . .
After the burning down of the Reichstag, politicians had nowhere to meet. The Kroll Opera House in Berlin was chosen. This was a relatively small round building – perfect for meetings. On March 23rd, elected officials were due to meet to discuss and vote on Hitler’s Enabling Law.
As politicians neared the building, they found it surrounded by SS and SA thugs who tried to ensure that only Nazi or Nationalist politicians [in coalition with the Nazis] got into the building. The vote for this law was crucial as it gave Hitler a vast amount of power. The law basically stated that any bill only needed Hitler’s signature and within 24 hours that bill would become law in Germany. With only Nazis and other right wing politicians inside the Kroll Opera House, the bill was quickly passed into law. The act gave Hitler what he wanted — dictatorial power. What he wanted would become law in Germany within 24 hours of his signature being put on paper.
On 7th April 1933, Nazi officials were put in charge of all local government in the provinces.
On May 2nd 1933, trades unions were abolished, their funds taken and their leaders put in prison. The workers were given a May Day holiday in return.
On July 14th 1933, a law was passed making it illegal to form a new political party. It also made the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany"

And THAT is how it happened.

 

[Stanley Doble]

The people voted Hitler into power.

Just for the record, the people never voted Hitler into anything. The best the Nazi party ever did in a national election was 37.27% and in the last 1932 election that dropped to 33.09%. At that point they held 196 seats in the Reichstag, far short of the 293 needed for a majority.

In the Presidential election Hitler ran second to Hindenberg, who got 53% of the votes to Hitler's 36.8%.

The Nazis seized control through intimidation and dirty tricks, culminating in the declaration of martial law after the Reichstag fire, which experts today believe was faked up by the Nazis.

Martial law meant no more elections while the emergency lasted. There were no more elections until after the war ended and the Nazi government ceased to exist.

Later.........................

In case it was not obvious, I started this post before Jamespowers post above was posted. I would not have bothered if I had seen it first, but will let mine stand.

 

[jamespowers]

Just for the record, the people never voted Hitler into anything. The best the Nazi party ever did in a national election was 37.27% and in the last 1932 election that dropped to 33.09%. At that point they held 196 seats in the Reichstag, far short of the 293 needed for a majority.

In the Presidential election Hitler ran second to Hindenberg, who got 53% of the votes to Hitler's 36.8%.

The Nazis seized control through intimidation and dirty tricks, culminating in the declaration of martial law after the Reichstag fire, which experts today believe was faked up by the Nazis.

Martial law meant no more elections while the emergency lasted. There were no more elections until after the war ended and the Nazi government ceased to exist.

Later.........................

In case it was not obvious, I started this post before Jamespowers post above was posted. I would not have bothered if I had seen it first, but will let mine stand.

Good points all and let it stand. We cannot let things like that stand unchallenged as it is simply not true and does a disservice to all the people involved in WWII.

 

[Big J]

Good points all and let it stand. We cannot let things like that stand unchallenged as it is simply not true and does a disservice to all the people involved in WWII.

I dunno guys. There is kind of a slippery slope risk of letting the Germans off the hook for their war responsibility here. Vote winner or not, pre-war Germany was a democracy, and the fact that the German people allowed the Nazi party to silence dissenting press, and intimidate/murder critics and opposition because they were too busy getting on with their daily lives doesn't wash for me.
It's rights and responsibilities. In a democracy, people have the right to vote, but they also have a responsibility to be politically and socially aware, and when required, active for the good of the nation against people like Hitler who gain power through the back door, and use it to dismantle all of the structures that safeguard people from abuse by their own government.
In this respect, the German attitude of 'it's not my problem' regarding Hitler's suppression of civil society, legal and constitutional changes, turned out to be a mistake in 1945, didn't it?

 

[jamespowers]

I dunno guys. There is kind of a slippery slope risk of letting the Germans off the hook for their war responsibility here. Vote winner or not, pre-war Germany was a democracy, and the fact that the German people allowed the Nazi party to silence dissenting press, and intimidate/murder critics and opposition because they were too busy getting on with their daily lives doesn't wash for me.
It's rights and responsibilities. In a democracy, people have the right to vote, but they also have a responsibility to be politically and socially aware, and when required, active for the good of the nation against people like Hitler who gain power through the back door, and use it to dismantle all of the structures that safeguard people from abuse by their own government.
In this respect, the German attitude of 'it's not my problem' regarding Hitler's suppression of civil society, legal and constitutional changes, turned out to be a mistake in 1945, didn't it?

You have to remember that Germany had a VERY brief stint with the Weimar Republic. Before that they were USED to Totalitarianism. Some were afraid of their new rights and didn't know what to do with their newly won freedom. A republic works when the people are ready for it. They were not. They slipped right back into totalitarianism very easily because it was confortable. They were more used to it. THAT is what they should be blamed for---being comfortable with totalitarianism to the point of accepting Hitler.
On the other side of the coin, not all Germans loved Hitler. Not all Germans were Nazis. However, when you outlaw all other parties then you make it hard for the regular citizen to tear down a dictator. They just kill you and be done with it. There were attempts to overthrow Hitler like Valkerie so we cannot condemn all of the people. they were just as much prisoners in their country.
It is not a black and white situation with Hitler. Having read tons of material on him and the war, the only thing that is clear is that he got away with plenty and no one stopped him when it was possible---to the detriment of world history. :doh:

 

[Big J]

You have to remember that Germany had a VERY brief stint with the Weimar Republic. Before that they were USED to Totalitarianism. Some were afraid of their new rights and didn't know what to do with their newly won freedom. A republic works when the people are ready for it. They were not. They slipped right back into totalitarianism very easily because it was confortable. They were more used to it. THAT is what they should be blamed for---being comfortable with totalitarianism to the point of accepting Hitler.
On the other side of the coin, not all Germans loved Hitler. Not all Germans were Nazis. However, when you outlaw all other parties then you make it hard for the regular citizen to tear down a dictator. They just kill you and be done with it. There were attempts to overthrow Hitler like Valkerie so we cannot condemn all of the people. they were just as much prisoners in their country.
It is not a black and white situation with Hitler. Having read tons of material on him and the war, the only thing that is clear is that he got away with plenty and no one stopped him when it was possible---to the detriment of world history. :doh:

Thank you for your explanation Mr. Powers!
I really don't know very much about pre-war Germany. I think I kind of take it for granted that people know thier rights, but Germany's situation was completely different back then.
I guess this is why it's important to be able to discuss these things. I should do more reading about it.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Hitler had promised a general election for March 1933. . . . One week before the election was due to take place, the Reichstag building burned down. Hitler immediately declared that it was the signal for a communist takeover of the nation. Hitler knew that if he was to convince President Hindenburg to give him emergency powers – as stated in the Constitution – he had to play on the old president’s fear of communism. What better than to convince him that the communists were about to take over the nation by force?

A known communist – Marianus van der Lubbe – was caught near the Reichstag building immediately after the fire had started. Those that arrested him – Nazi officials – claimed that Lubbe confessed to them that the fire was a signal to other communists to start the revolution to overthrow democracy in the country. Matches were allegedly found on van der Lubbe and those who arrested him claimed that he smelt of petrol.
Hitler asked Hindenburg to grant him emergency powers in view of the ‘communist takeover’. Using the constitution, Hindenburg agreed to pass the Law for the Protection of the People and the State.

aka a False Flag Operation of which the Reichstag Fire was the first in modern history. The Nazis would also use a false flag operation, Operation Canned Goods, in which SS disguised in Polish uniforms staged an attack on a radio station in Gleiwitz, Germany, on the German-Polish border to provide a pretext and justification for invading Poland.

 

[jamespowers]

Thank you for your explanation Mr. Powers!
I really don't know very much about pre-war Germany. I think I kind of take it for granted that people know thier rights, but Germany's situation was completely different back then.
I guess this is why it's important to be able to discuss these things. I should do more reading about it.

I am sure Ben Franklin was thinking somewhere along those lines when he said that people who would give up a little liberty for security deserve neither.

History has a way of teaching us about the future.

 

[jamespowers]

aka a False Flag Operation of which the Reichstag Fire was the first in modern history. The Nazis would also use a false flag operation, Operation Canned Goods, in which SS disguised in Polish uniforms staged an attack on a radio station in Gleiwitz, Germany, on the German-Polish border to provide a pretext and justification for invading Poland.

Scapegoating has been around a long time but Hitler and his minions were masters of taking it a step further by setting up those kinds of situations. Nowadays we have the Rent-a-Mob. :doh:

 

[Stanley Doble]

I dunno guys. There is kind of a slippery slope risk of letting the Germans off the hook for their war responsibility here. Vote winner or not, pre-war Germany was a democracy, and the fact that the German people allowed the Nazi party to silence dissenting press, and intimidate/murder critics and opposition because they were too busy getting on with their daily lives doesn't wash for me.
It's rights and responsibilities. In a democracy, people have the right to vote, but they also have a responsibility to be politically and socially aware, and when required, active for the good of the nation against people like Hitler who gain power through the back door, and use it to dismantle all of the structures that safeguard people from abuse by their own government.
In this respect, the German attitude of 'it's not my problem' regarding Hitler's suppression of civil society, legal and constitutional changes, turned out to be a mistake in 1945, didn't it?

Allowed? Allowed? You don't know much about German history. Before WW1 Germany was a paragon of political virtue, pioneer of social programs and very strict on graft and malfeasance in office.

The respect felt by the people for the government, went a long way to explain why they went along when their government turned in a darker direction. That, and the Gestapo. There were plenty of anti government people but in a short time they were dead, in prison or intimidated into silence. Then there was the massive, unprecedented propaganda program.

It is a lot harder to explain why we today are allowing our governments to get away with their crimes. By now we should know better.

 

[AmateisGal]

Allowed? Allowed? You don't know much about German history. Before WW1 Germany was a paragon of political virtue, pioneer of social programs and very strict on graft and malfeasance in office.

The respect felt by the people for the government, went a long way to explain why they went along when their government turned in a darker direction. That, and the Gestapo. There were plenty of anti government people but in a short time they were dead, in prison or intimidated into silence. Then there was the massive, unprecedented propaganda program.

It is a lot harder to explain why we today are allowing our governments to get away with their crimes. By now we should know better.

"Went along with" is pretty much the same as "allowed."

 

[Big J]

Allowed? Allowed? You don't know much about German history. Before WW1 Germany was a paragon of political virtue, pioneer of social programs and very strict on graft and malfeasance in office.

The respect felt by the people for the government, went a long way to explain why they went along when their government turned in a darker direction. That, and the Gestapo. There were plenty of anti government people but in a short time they were dead, in prison or intimidated into silence. Then there was the massive, unprecedented propaganda program.

It is a lot harder to explain why we today are allowing our governments to get away with their crimes. By now we should know better.

Stanley, you're outraged that my use of 'allowed' is inaccurate and shows that 'I don't understand', and then you agree with everything I said!

 

[Big J]

"Went along with" is pretty much the same as "allowed."

Spot on!
'Choosing' not to vote, 'choosing' to leave these decisions to others is abdicating responsibility. Except that in a democracy, not participating, and by inaction allowing a fascist dictator to take control, is exactly the same as endorsing that dictator.
If there is any really important lesson to be learned from WW2 Germany, it's that the Germans couldn't escape responsibility, nor should they have been allowed to, and therefore, nor must we.

 

[dh66]

I am sure Ben Franklin was thinking somewhere along those lines when he said that people who would give up a little liberty for security deserve neither.

History has a way of teaching us about the future.

It's true, that those who don't know history are damned to repeat it....and unfortunately there are a LOT of people who don't know history.

I remember ol' Ben Franklin's quote being bandied about quite a lot, some years back, with the creation of the Homeland security act, yet in spite of that pearl of wisdom you nor I nor anyone else can get into an airport without being treated like a criminal, and worse still, the justification for 'stop & frisk' laws enacted in places like NY, now just being out in public is grounds for the works. Tell me who's been paying attention in history class lately? Far too few.

 

[Treetopflyer]

I concur that more people need to study history. Studying history is more than just looking at a Wikipedia page and getting the abbreviated version of events. Studying history is learning all aspects of events, who, what, when and why. To understand history you have to understand how events unfold. How the people that are involved think, the background of key players in those events. For example, would we have won WWII if someone other than Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander? What made him able to do the job? I don’t expect answers to those questions, but that is how you have to think if you really study history.

The one statement that I detest most is “I was never taught that in high school history.” There is too much to just skim over and not enough time in four years of high school to learn it all. I had classes in college that lasted a semester that only covered one battle or event. The course would cover, in depth, all aspects of that event. You can’t take one nugget from a historical event and think you know about it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And I'd add that a real understanding of history depends, not just on understanding what "great men" did and why they did it, but what it was about society that allowed them to do what they did. No historical figure, no matter how towering we think they are, ever accomplished a single thing without the aid, support, or opposition of a great many people whose individual names we might never know. The soil that nurtured the plant is every bit as important as the plant itself.

 

[jamespowers]

I concur that more people need to study history. Studying history is more than just looking at a Wikipedia page and getting the abbreviated version of events. Studying history is learning all aspects of events, who, what, when and why. To understand history you have to understand how events unfold. How the people that are involved think, the background of key players in those events. For example, would we have won WWII if someone other than Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander? What made him able to do the job? I don’t expect answers to those questions, but that is how you have to think if you really study history.

Eisenhower owed a lot to Lieutenant-General Sir Frederick Edgeworth Morgan. Morgan set up and researched the D-Day invasion long before Eisenhower became SAC. His maps, strategy and coordination of the troops' efforts was well in place before Eisenhower took command. Before that it was thought that Marshall would be SAC but he could not be spared so Morgan proceeded without a commander for quite some time. We all remember Eisenhower but Morgan has disappeared into the obscurity of history. Because of his efforts, it hurt his reputation with his own British officers such as Monty. :doh:

 

[pawineguy]

I concur that more people need to study history. Studying history is more than just looking at a Wikipedia page and getting the abbreviated version of events. Studying history is learning all aspects of events, who, what, when and why. To understand history you have to understand how events unfold. How the people that are involved think, the background of key players in those events. For example, would we have won WWII if someone other than Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander? What made him able to do the job? I don’t expect answers to those questions, but that is how you have to think if you really study history.

The one statement that I detest most is “I was never taught that in high school history.” There is too much to just skim over and not enough time in four years of high school to learn it all. I had classes in college that lasted a semester that only covered one battle or event. The course would cover, in depth, all aspects of that event. You can’t take one nugget from a historical event and think you know about it.

I agree with all of the above, and would add that it's important to read your history from multiple sources. All history is filtered through the lens of the author, so read enough different versions and you can start to bring it into focus, or at least reach your own informed conclusions.

 

[pawineguy]

And I'd add that a real understanding of history depends, not just on understanding what "great men" did and why they did it, but what it was about society that allowed them to do what they did. No historical figure, no matter how towering we think they are, ever accomplished a single thing without the aid, support, or opposition of a great many people whose individual names we might never know. The soil that nurtured the plant is every bit as important as the plant itself.

Anecdotally, among friends who I sometimes encourage to read more about historical topics, there is a great reluctance to tackle the tomes that give that level of detail that it really takes to understand a large, complex piece of history. They end up reading the 300 page version of the Korean War instead of the 900 page book which really digs deep. That's what yields the simplistic vision of several "supermen" who shape the event.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I agree with all of the above, and would add that it's important to read your history from multiple sources. All history is filtered through the lens of the author, so read enough different versions and you can start to bring it into focus, or at least reach your own informed conclusions.

This might be the single most important thing to keep in mind. Before you even start a book you can often get a pretty clear idea of what to expect simply by reading the author's bio blurb. Is he or she afflilated with a "think tank" or a foundation that funded their research? Take a look at the ideological alignment of that organization and you'll have a pretty good idea what to expect when you read the book, and you'll be more aware of factors influencing the author's thesis and conclusions. It'd be nice if all authors at all times wrote only in pursuit of pure and unvarnished truth, but getting the grant check is often the more important thing.